From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 64-bit queryId? |
Date: | 2017-09-30 15:39:01 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzk4VALL5bxYZ54jAFdFGzdrNZk00xMH8WbAJjzJLJ_aRg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Assuming, however, that you don't manage to prove all known
> mathematics inconsistent, what one might reasonably hope to do is
> render collisions remote enough that one need not worry about them too
> much in practice.
Isn't that already true in the case of queryId? I've never heard any
complaints about collisions. Most people don't change
pg_stat_statements.max, so the probability of a collision is more like
1%. And, that's the probability of *any* collision, not the
probability of a collision that the user actually cares about. The
majority of entries in pg_stat_statements among those ten thousand
will not be interesting. Often, 90%+ will be one-hit wonders. If that
isn't true, then you're probably not going to find pg_stat_statements
very useful, because you have nothing to focus on.
I have heard complaints about a number of different things in
pg_stat_statements, like the fact that we don't always manage to
replace constants with '?'/'$n' characters in all cases. I heard about
that quite a few times during my time at Heroku. But never this.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-09-30 15:41:17 | Re: 64-bit queryId? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-30 15:25:43 | Re: Re: CREATE COLLATION does not sanitize ICU's BCP 47 language tags. Should it? |